United States v. Walter Ajiatas-Mazariegos

MEMORANDUM

Walter Ajiatas-Mazariegos appeals the 42-month sentence he received after pleading guilty to illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a). The district court rejected the plea agreement, which would have resulted in a sentence at the low end of the applicable sentencing guideline range, and the defendant chose not to withdraw his plea.

His principle argument on appeal is that the district court should not have applied an 8-level enhancement for his prior misdemeanor conviction for assault on a federal officer. See 18 U.S.C. § 111 (a). He contends the conviction was not for a “crime of violence.” 18 U.S.C. § 16 (a). United States v. Chapman, 528 F.3d 1215, 1219-20 (9th Cir.2008), however, holds that a violation of section 111(a) requires an assault, making it categorically a “crime of violence.”

Appellant contends on appeal that Chapman was decided after his section 111(a) conviction and that therefore at the time of the conviction the law was unclear. He argues that as a result the government cannot rely on the categorical approach. When he objected to the enhancement in the district court, however, the government responded with an Addendum to the Presentence…